Breen (1987a: 162) holds the view that both communicative and learning tasks are mutually supportive of each other. Like Nunan (2004: 1) on defining language task (see, section 3.4, on page 121), also, Breen (1987a: 162) draws a distinction between the communicative (target) and learning (pedagogical) tasks. Breen relates communicative tasks as those derived from the analysis of actual tasks/activities that someone performs when communicating through the use of a target language. Breen maintains that the analysis of the communicative tasks may in one way or another reveal a specific task or appropriate repertoire of language performance. According to Breen, the analysis may reveal aspects, such as specific code of communication, for example, for the specialists, engineers and doctor-patients, as demonstrated in Smitsdorff’s (2008) study. Similarly, Ellis (2003a: 65-66) is of the view that the content selection is based on what type of tasks to use and decide on their thematic content. Furthermore, Ellis argues that other essential elements, such as specific tasks that are likely to lead to the kind of communication in order to promote and facilitate SLA, are also considered.
3.6.1. Selection of communicative tasks
Ellis (2003a: 76) is of the view that the point of depart in course design is the selection of tasks. Ellis maintains that such tasks should be important and of interest to the L2 learners. Furthermore, he maintains that the selected tasks should be compatible with learners’ levels of intellectual development (cf. Long 2015a: 221-222). Similarly, Ellis argues that tasks should also contribute a new element to the learners’ current level of knowledge. Developing further the above views, Breen (1987a: 162) maintains that the role of TBS designers in relation to the selection of communicative tasks is to generally focus on the underlying competence that is required in a range of communicative situations. In this context, the designers primarily consider three major issues, such as (i) the underlying language rules and conventions of the actual language use. (ii) Focus on the knowledge that is needed by the discourse participants purposely for accuracy, appropriateness, and meaningfulness within a range of such communicative situations. Lastly, (iii) syllabus designers consider also skills or pattern use that discourse participants may want to participate in the expressing, interpreting and negotiations in the communications situations.
Nevertheless, Breen (1987a: 162) argues that focusing and selecting of the above underlying knowledge, and language ability use is more challenging for L2 designers compared to the selection of the learning content as depicted in the structural/linguistic syllabuses (see further section 2.4.2.2, on page 74). On the other hand, Breen asserts that TBS designers consider the selection of a wider
range of tasks and task types as an opportunity that directly bridges the gap between L2 learners’ present competence use in L1 and the future use of the target language (s). According to Breen, TBS designers’ considerations are motivated and based on two principles. The principles include,
[First], there will be areas of overlap between first language communicative competence and target competence so that the former can link with and accommodate the latter. Second, that underlying competence is generative in the sense that it is the means by which the learner can cope with the unpredictable, be creative and adaptable, and transfer knowledge and capability across tasks in a way that mastery of a fixed repertoire of performance might not facilitate. Breen (1987a: 162)
In relation to the selection of communicative tasks, Breen finally argues that TBS designers cluster only tasks with the following characteristics. Such characteristics include, (i) most common or generalizable task in the target situations and contexts. Breen refers to such tasks as core tasks that other tasks can be derived or seen from. (ii) The relevance of tasks in terms of L2 learners’ needs and interests. Lastly, (iii) or the combination of the characteristics in (i) and (ii) above.
Similarly, on the specific selection of the thematic content of tasks, Ellis (2003b: 218) stresses that thematic selection is a crucial aspect of syllabus design that receives limited attention. Ellis maintains that thematic content involves the selection of areas of interests or themes that learners will learn. Furthermore, Ellis argues that such selection is primarily based on whether the target of the pedagogical task is either for general language use of specific usage in the L2. In light of his views above, Ellis provides guiding principles for selection of the general language use. These include, (i) topic familiarity, (ii) intrinsic interests, and (iii) the prediction of general situations that L2 learners may later find themselves in. In addition, Ellis stresses that such themes are generated, as summarised in Table 3:8 below.
Table 3:8: An illustration of theme and topic generator
Theme 1
↓ Learner
- Body functions; Daily cores; Birthdays parties
Theme 2
↓ Homes
- Family members; Extended family members - Neighbours
Theme 3
↓ School
- Classmates; Teachers; School life
Theme 4 ↓
The World around
us - Our communities
Theme 5 Imaginations - Fantasy
Source: Modified from Ellis (2003b: 219). Key: ↓ indicates a continuum of the peripheral.
Ellis (2003b: 219) argues that the themes in Table 3:8 above, are organised in form of being either close or peripheral to the L2 learners. According to Ellis, the themes that engage learners in topics that are close to them include, (i) learners’ body functions, (ii) playing habits and (iii) birthdays. Ellis states that such examples of topics are mainly suggestions from language teachers. The suggestions primarily depend on learners’ levels of proficiency, i.e. close topics being more suitable for language beginners. On the other hand, peripheral themes/topics are set to cater to more advanced language learners. Such topics include local cultural values or interests. Finally, Ellis is of the view that, in case the syllabus is for specific purposes, topic selection is principally based on needs analysis (see, section 2.4.7, on page 104) of the target tasks that learners will need to perform. Similarly, while expounding on Ur’s (1996) views on task motivation, Roberts, Griffith, Rubin and McCoy (2009: 294-295) contend that language learners are more motivated, for example, if the task to be performed is relevant in terms of authenticity and meaningful to learners’ activities in association to learners’ life-related purposes that learners do outside their language classrooms. These views are in agreement that with those of Skehan (2015: 139) that motivation is brought to the task by the learners rather than during task performance as it is argued elsewhere.
3.6.2. Selection of learning tasks
In section 3.3.1, on page 118, Long (2015a: 224-225) emphasised the view that learning tasks or pedagogical tasks (PTs) are realised from L2 task-types or target task types (TTTs). In the same section, Long (2015a: 223) argues that needs analysis (NA) surveys provide information to the L2 teachers that all the collected data; (i) is sufficient to address learners’ interests in learning L2s; (ii) can sufficiently be addressed in the prescribed teaching time. In this regard, according to Long, PTs are directly realised from the target (real-world tasks) tasks and rationally sequenced to design TBSs. Long (2015a: 224-225), however, maintains that in a situation where either (i) or (ii) above is
insufficiently considered, there is a need for PTs to be transformed before a syllabus is realised. The transformation involves categorising target tasks as TTTs. Thereafter, PTs are derived from the TTTs, as illustrated below.
Figure 3:5: Steps and processes in task-based syllabus design
Source: Modified from Long (2015a: 224)
Similarly, Breen (1987a: 162) argues that the selection of learning tasks is based on the metacommunicative criteria. According to Breen, such criteria provide a framework for L2 learners to engage in communication tasks. In addition, Breen stresses the view that metacommunicative criteria deal with L2 learners’ difficulties which are bound to emerge during task performance. Furthermore, Breen (1987a:162-3) maintains that the metacommunicative criteria are set to address the following two questions. These include, (i) how do the knowledge systems work, and how can communication abilities be used in a suitable way? (ii) How can the learning and development of abilities best be done?
In other words, according to Breen (1987a: 163), learning tasks explicitly focus on the language rules and conventions of the three knowledge systems and their subsequent relationships as discussed in section 3.3.2, on page 120 (cf. Rose & Martin 2012: 236). In addition, Breen argues that learning tasks are about what needs to be known and that learning tasks also focus upon the way in which interpretation, expressing and language negotiations are made/performed. Therefore, in sections 2.3.3 and 3.3, on pages 63 and 117, Breen noted that the grading or subdivision of tasks proceeds the selection exercise of the learning tasks. Thus, the next section discusses the notion of grading regarding the learning content of TBSs.